Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    This reads as systems against soft/thin skinned targets. I have doubts about this against heavy armour and bunkers.
    I think the thermobarics was mixed in with antiarmor bomblets.

    Actually, this is false. We want as small fireball as possible. What we want is an overpressure mixed with shrapnel from the shell casing flying at supersonic speeds to cut into anything and everything in its path.
    Yes, I get what you are saying. What I meant was that, if you look at this video for example:

    https://youtu.be/gZYM_MUlBGY?t=1m6s

    Even at 2 million fps, after the first few frames, the chemical explosive has already burnt up, and fireball is already mostly losing energy.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      Gen Scales gets this somewhat wrong.



      MLRS ICM/DPICM rounds were replaced with the AW round. Instead of having 644 submunitions (with an average 60% dud rate) the AW round contain 160,000 preformed tungsten fragments. Think big ass beehive round

      I think that still qualifies as "Steel Rain"

      The real reason we dumped ICM was not because of civilian casualties after the battle. Its because any area that you use ICM rounds in gets classified as a minefield/ No go area for your maneuver troops until Engineers have a chance to clear the area.

      (Edit) ICM rounds/submunitions don't work well in forest, on steep slopes or soft ground (Desert sand or mud). The AW round solves those problems. Its a airburst weapon

      And nothing says loving like HE/VT
      But do you sacrifice footprint?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by citanon View Post
        I think the thermobarics was mixed in with antiarmor bomblets.
        Recall the GS's 60% dud rate.

        Originally posted by citanon View Post
        Even at 2 million fps, after the first few frames, the chemical explosive has already burnt up, and fireball is already mostly losing energy.
        Which again makes this an AP and not an AT system. I have doubts even against thin-skin LAV-III and M113s.

        Against a mech inf unit, this would almost be useless. Sure you can kill exposed infantry but that would not stop the maneuver. On a battlefield that spans a 100 miles or more, it is killing the vehicles that is important, not the men. How fast can foot infantry travel and how far can they travel when their supply train is stopped?
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by citanon View Post
          But do you sacrifice footprint?
          Not really. Our ability to mass fires effectively has grown tremendously in the past 10 years. And when facing a Russian threat we are not facing GSFG...the threat footprint is smaller also.
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Thermobarics are a good weather weapon. It sucks in wind and rain.
            all the events i know of were assisted shots as well

            ie manually placed by teams to destroy unrecoverables
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • This is the alternative warhead?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                This is the alternative warhead?

                Yes. Just as the video says

                Comment


                • So is MGen Scales behind the times on his understanding of our artillery capabilities, or is there room for genuine concern?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                    So is MGen Scales behind the times on his understanding of our artillery capabilities, or is there room for genuine concern?
                    What is the threat? What is the air environment? What determines victory conditions? All of that factors into whether you have a concern. Early days in A'stan the 10th Mountain left their M119A2 105mm howitzers at FT Drum and instead used 120mm mortars...and found them woefully inadequate. Next planes in brought the M109s...and then M777 155mm as well.

                    Resource requirements are determined by threat and forces to neutralize it.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • recently read on one russian chat discussion about T14 and new mech infantry tactics. The blogger was raising the issue that introduction of active defense systems for armored vehicles changes the usual tactics of dismounted infantry, which was usually hiding behind the armor. The introduction of some sort of such ADS is inevitable in developed armies, Russia and Israel already have it on limited scale, US Army is experimenting with Israeli equipment.

                      However, vehicles with ADS might be dangerous for infantry hiding around the armor.... hence, either the ADS system has to be switched off when infantry is around or, no infantry shall be hiding close to the vehicle.... People state that efficiency of armored vehicles left without infantry support around is much lower.

                      The discussion started with analysis of usefulness of Afghanit ADS of T14..... however it goes beyond T14, as some sort of ADS will soon become part of armored forces of many armies.

                      Interesting topic.... guys what do you think?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Garry View Post
                        recently read on one russian chat discussion about T14 and new mech infantry tactics. The blogger was raising the issue that introduction of active defense systems for armored vehicles changes the usual tactics of dismounted infantry, which was usually hiding behind the armor. The introduction of some sort of such ADS is inevitable in developed armies, Russia and Israel already have it on limited scale, US Army is experimenting with Israeli equipment.

                        However, vehicles with ADS might be dangerous for infantry hiding around the armor.... hence, either the ADS system has to be switched off when infantry is around or, no infantry shall be hiding close to the vehicle.... People state that efficiency of armored vehicles left without infantry support around is much lower.

                        The discussion started with analysis of usefulness of Afghanit ADS of T14..... however it goes beyond T14, as some sort of ADS will soon become part of armored forces of many armies.

                        Interesting topic.... guys what do you think?
                        Wont be much change really. Except for urban environments I don't think you'd really don't have infantry all that close to tanks. I never trained in anything looking like a war movie where infantry and tanks were on top of one another. Grunts are squishy, tanks are squishers that draw fire from things that don't just go zippp, but boom. ADS blast or blast from a HEAT round, both are bad news for infantry to close to a tank so spacing is already important. Tanks are also automatically ATT, they can reach out and touch someone so they don't automatically need to be close to the infantry to provide covering and overwatch. Plus in the assault role, Russian conscript infantry are not well trained so train to fight from inside the IFV's and not to dismount until on the objective where they can spray and pray.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Wont be much change really. Except for urban environments I don't think you'd really don't have infantry all that close to tanks. I never trained in anything looking like a war movie where infantry and tanks were on top of one another. Grunts are squishy, tanks are squishers that draw fire from things that don't just go zippp, but boom.
                          Z, how close do mechanized and motorized infantry operate to the tanks when in open plains, broken plains and riverine/canal country?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                            Z, how close do mechanized and motorized infantry operate to the tanks when in open plains, broken plains and riverine/canal country?
                            Motorized or mechanized? Trucks and APC's (motorized) will generally follow behind tanks. They can't take fire or provide over watch. Some dedicated scout APC's might lead but they can't provide over watch and rely on tanks and IFV's to bail them out if a fight developes. IFV's (mechanized) can provide over watch and in some cases, will even lead tanks. If infantry is dismounted, they generally lead and tanks provide supporting fires and over watch. Though a more recent vet or officer would be better placed to comment than I am. I was just a crewman.

                            Comment


                            • Z,
                              How do you envision a UK Armoured Infantry Brigade/German Panzer Brigade operate, with its one tank battalion, 2 mech infantry battalion and 1 motor infantry battalion structure? How would the battalion-sized battlegroups be tailored for the mission on relatively open terrain?
                              This question obviously goes to other armored troopers and especially to the Brits on the board.
                              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                                Z,
                                How do you envision a UK Armoured Infantry Brigade/German Panzer Brigade operate, with its one tank battalion, 2 mech infantry battalion and 1 motor infantry battalion structure? How would the battalion-sized battlegroups be tailored for the mission on relatively open terrain?
                                This question obviously goes to other armored troopers and especially to the Brits on the board.
                                The US Army ran company teams when I was in. An armor brigade would be 2 armor 1 infantry battalions and an infantry brigade would be two infantry and 1 armor battalion. So for example the infantry battalion would have some of its companies famed out to tank companies who would give up a tank platoon to augment the remaining infantry. The result would be 3 combined arms battalions with organic scouts, mortars, maintenance, medical and supply/logistics provided by the parent battalion. The brigade would then farm out engineering and artillery support from its organic or higher assets as needed based on mission.

                                Granted, we were set up to face other armor heavy enemies. I saw first hand how important the recon/ counter recon fight was to that style of fighting at NTC. When we won the recon fight, we did pretty good. When we lost it, we ended up getting creamed. As a combat vet as to how it worked in practice against a mostly dismounted urban infantry based opponent. MOUT training when I was in was a kinda now and then but not really thing. I know a lot more about putting on MOPP gear than I do urban combat.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X